Wednesday, October 11, 2006

So, for a second official paper, I would like you to write in detail about some strategic use of language you find in politics. It can be two politicians talking about the same thing in different ways, or just a phrase from a single politician. It can be a news story that uses language in a strategic way while purporting to be neutral. Once you start looking you can find political language anywhere.

What I am looking for most of all is sustained analysis of a specific piece of political talk. Don’t say, “they always talk this way about ____,” give me an example that we can focus on.

You can use any of the theories and tactics we have looked at up to now, shifting dimension, increasing attention, using metaphors, associations and radial categories, framing as a gain or a loss, manipulating causal stories, vague language through abstraction or passive voice, forks—whatever you think is going on.

Remember to consider at least one alternative explanation. We want a sustained analysis. The length can be anything from 3 – 5 pages. You can write more if you like.

Post these on the website as a comment or on the actual webpage. We will talk about these papers Monday and review briefly for the midterm. If Wednesday is bad for you we can have one other time.


Michael Reinhard

Place your posts about the North Korea Story here.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

anti-Bush tirade and homage to Murrow:

oberlin


Hastert's News conference

Hastert

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Deborah Stone

Monday, October 02, 2006

Foley Framing

review of new Lakoff book

interesting article on Clinton and Michael Scheur

Novak on Scheur

Sunday, October 01, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/weekinreview/01manley.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?